PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
VUSA.L vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

VUSA.L vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

VUSA.L (Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - VUSA.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, VUSA.L returned 15.64%/yr vs 8.06%/yr for ACWV. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. VUSA.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

VUSA.L is traded in GBP, while ACWV is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ACWV values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VUSA.L achieves a 7.22% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.09% return. Over the past 10 years, VUSA.L has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 15.64%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 8.06% annualized return.

VUSA.L

1D
-0.01%
1M
0.69%
YTD
7.22%
6M
7.36%
1Y
23.59%
3Y*
17.89%
5Y*
14.06%
10Y*
15.64%

ACWV

1D
0.44%
1M
1.98%
YTD
3.09%
6M
2.47%
1Y
6.35%
3Y*
7.54%
5Y*
6.48%
10Y*
8.06%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
VUSA.L
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF		7.22%9.39%27.33%19.82%-9.02%30.97%13.65%26.53%-0.10%10.72%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.09%3.13%13.33%2.82%0.30%15.04%0.02%16.43%4.42%8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between VUSA.L and ACWV is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.18

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.29

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2012

0.51

Over the past year, the correlation between VUSA.L and ACWV has dropped to 0.18 - well below their long-term average of 0.51, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
VUSA.L
ACWV

Technology

35.7%
22.6%

Financial Services

11.6%
13.1%

Communication Services

11.3%
12.2%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%
5.1%

Healthcare

8.5%
13.2%

Industrials

8.3%
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
10.3%

Energy

3.5%
3.4%

Utilities

2.4%
7.8%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.8%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.8%

Technology

VUSA.L
35.7%
ACWV
22.6%

Financial Services

VUSA.L
11.6%
ACWV
13.1%

Communication Services

VUSA.L
11.3%
ACWV
12.2%

Consumer Cyclical

VUSA.L
10.2%
ACWV
5.1%

Healthcare

VUSA.L
8.5%
ACWV
13.2%

Industrials

VUSA.L
8.3%
ACWV
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

VUSA.L
4.9%
ACWV
10.3%

Energy

VUSA.L
3.5%
ACWV
3.4%

Utilities

VUSA.L
2.4%
ACWV
7.8%

Real Estate

VUSA.L
1.9%
ACWV
0.8%

Basic Materials

VUSA.L
1.8%
ACWV
1.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with VUSA.L:
VUSA.L vs. CSPX.ASVUSA.L vs. VOOVUSA.L vs. VWRL.LVUSA.L vs. SGLN.LVUSA.L vs. VNRT.LVUSA.L vs. VUSA.DEVUSA.L vs. VUKE.L
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

VUSA.L vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
VUSA.L
VUSA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
VUSA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

VUSA.LACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.18
0.81

+1.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.95
1.20

+1.75

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.14

+0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.31

1.24

+2.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.99

3.04

+8.95

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VUSA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VUSA.L and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VUSA.L drawdown since its inception was -25.48%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -20.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VUSA.L and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

VUSA.LACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.48%

-20.27%

-5.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.10%

-5.16%

-1.94%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.93%

-8.10%

-12.83%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.93%

-9.56%

-11.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.48%

-20.27%

-5.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.20%

-2.15%

-1.05%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.16%

-3.29%

+0.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.96%

2.09%

-0.13%

Volatility

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L) has a higher volatility of 3.36% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.81%. This indicates that VUSA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

VUSA.LACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.36%

1.81%

+1.55%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.37%

5.86%

+1.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.78%

7.86%

+2.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.32%

9.76%

+4.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.66%

13.00%

+2.66%

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

VUSA.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

VUSA.L vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

VUSA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than ACWV's 2.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.04%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
VUSA.L
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF		0.89%0.95%1.00%1.24%1.41%1.04%1.44%1.50%1.72%1.61%1.58%1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

VUSA.L and ACWV have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, VUSA.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

VUSA.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ACWV.

VUSA.L is categorized as S&P 500, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. VUSA.L tracks S&P 500 Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for VUSA.L and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for VUSA.L and ACWV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer